If Apollo was a hoax...

[AtomicDog]

How come we never see any astronomers, engineers, or geologists staging a press conference and saying this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs


;D

[cos]

Because the Nasa death squads will get them!

or

They are ALL part of the conspiracy

or

They are ALL too stupid to see the truth.

Anyway, HBs probably think that Kaysing & Sibrel are the experts and we are just ignoring them.

[reynoldbot]

As a registered NASA death squad trooper and card-carrying disinformation agent, I can safely say no astronomers, engineers, or geologists will ever open their big mouths. It's what I get paid the big bucks for.

[Czero 101]

reynoldbot said:

As a registered NASA death squad trooper and card-carrying disinformation agent, I can safely say no astronomers, engineers, or geologists will ever open their big mouths. It's what I get paid the big bucks for.

Hmm... admitting your allegiances...

That knock you'll be hearing at your door very soon is nothing to worry about... really...



Nothing to see here folks... move along... move along...


Cz

[cos]

If Apollo was a hoax...

Why take 32000 photographs of the highest possible resolution? (17,000 70mm hand held photographs and 15000 5"x5" images from lunar orbit). I think you need around 32MP to come close to a 70mm Hasselblad neg. Pretty high resolution by anyone's measure.

They must have been awfully proud of their film set and papier mache moon. If you were trying to cover something up it is just about the dumbest thing you could do. The only way it makes any sense is if you were trying to archive a historic event in the best way possible. Any HB's care to share their wisdom?

[nomuse]

The latest direction the H.B.s seem to be taking is that the (faked) film and (faked) photographs are so "obviously shoddy," they don't require much in the way of effort, expense, or skill. For some reason they are not willing to be brought into discussion about what aspects of the visual record they find "shoddy," and if these aspects are truly indicative of a cheap production. Even Ed Wood had to pay for film, after all. Plus their priorities seem very skewed. They get all huffy -- shocked and angry -- at the obvious cheap cardboard mock-up LM NASA expects them to accept. But for some reason the kilometer-wide meticulously sculpted lunar surface never gets a second look. If you were saving money, would you be cutting costs on how your spacecraft looked? Or would you, as cos said, just shoot less frames? Or take more frames in each static set-up? Or do more close-ups and not have to deal with so many large vistas?

[reynoldbot]

nomuse said:

Or do more close-ups and not have to deal with so many large vistas?

A good observation. I'd say nearly 2/3 of the vast number of images taken are panoramas. What sense would it make to take such a large number of photographs of your fake moon landing set? How could you justify it?

[ineluki]

czero101 said:

Hmm... admitting your allegiances...

A very clever ploy to hide the Truth in plain sight, in the hope people will take it as a joke...

[nomuse]

reynoldbot said:

nomuse said:

Or do more close-ups and not have to deal with so many large vistas?

A good observation. I'd say nearly 2/3 of the vast number of images taken are panoramas. What sense would it make to take such a large number of photographs of your fake moon landing set? How could you justify it?

Well, an idea I didn't go into above, in an effort to achieve some semblance of simplicity, is that the lunar surface seen in the various images looks "exactly" like a desert in Utah. A properly credulous H.B. can simply assume that the scenery required no more effort than to dig a few crater-shaped holes here and there.

Which is, in turn, just more evidence of how LITTLE the H.B.s see, they who pride themselves on seeing the details others miss.

[AtomicDog]

I defy a HB to find a desert anywhere on Earth that shows NO evidence of being acted upon by wind, water, or life.

[Jason]

nomuse said:

Well, an idea I didn't go into above, in an effort to achieve some semblance of simplicity, is that the lunar surface seen in the various images looks "exactly" like a desert in Utah. A properly credulous H.B. can simply assume that the scenery required no more effort than to dig a few crater-shaped holes here and there.

Which is, in turn, just more evidence of how LITTLE the H.B.s see, they who pride themselves on seeing the details others miss.

Actually, the moon's surface looks almost nothing like a desert in Utah. Nearly all of our deserts still have a lot of sage on them. They're not just dirt. And they're the wrong color (white, brown, or red instead of gray).

[sts60]

It also looks almost nothing like a desert in Arizona, New Mexico, or Colorado - all places I've spent considerable time. Nor like the desert parts I've seen of Nevada or California.

[JayUtah]

Some of our deserts look a little bit like Mars if you squint a little. None look like the Moon.

[Cavorite]

I've seen HBs claim that the lack of vegetation can be accounted for by a thorough weeding of the site, but I've never seen one address the colour. Most of our deserts here in Oz are red, are there any in the US that are even remotely close? Something volcanic in Hawaii, perhaps?

[AtomicDog]

Set people who are so meticulous that they will pluck every bit of weed or blade of grass for thousands of square feet of desert, yet they turn around and miss a Coke can or "C rock". Hmph.